If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I think they should be allowed in every single eatery though, with no exceptions. Ian would love love love that!

And some would say that; 'seniors whine and ***** over every little thing'.

My father once built and owned an apartment building downtown. He was proud of the fact that at the time it was the one of the closest new apartment buildings to the downtown at the time. Then my dad would tell the story of talking with 'old man Melton' with my father saying that he was going to get seniors into the building and Melton saying he was crazy, that old people just sit around finding things wrong and that they'd be calling up my dad day and night. Stuff like: 'It's too hot, it's too cold...'. Melton said he should fill it with young people since they are too busy to care...".

My dad also had the story of having to go to the building to tell some girls in the building that a neighbour had complained that they had some boys over..."

I really don't give a toss if someone says I whine, why would that bother me???

I've mentioned this before on c2e: when I was a teen, my father and I were in a tractor dealership and my father nudged me pointing to the scruffy 'down and out' looking guy at the end of the counter. When we left my dad brought up the guy saying that that he was a great example of not judging people by their appearances. My dad knew who he was and said that he owned 40 sections of land somewhere...

I also know of guy that's often pretty scruffy looking that went into a local Toyota dealership in the 1990s to buy his wife a car and the salespeople ignored him until he left. When he complained about the bad treatment to a friend, she phoned the owner who she knew, saying that let alone a car, this guy could have bought the whole dealership...

This thread is like that quote. "I might not always agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it"
or "I may not always agree with were you want to live but I will defend your right to be able to live where you want".
I get it there is a lot of office workers downtown. Private/provincial/civic and federal office workers. Living downtown or close to downtown would put a lot of people within walking distance of where they work or being close to bus routes and LRT. Now I should imagine that a lot of cities throughout the world that have a bigger population than Edmonton have downtown high rises with rooftop play areas for kids. Enclosed outdoor spaces where kids can run around. Edmonton may develop into things like that but maybe not in my lifetime.

This thread is like that quote. "I might not always agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it"
or "I may not always agree with were you want to live but I will defend your right to be able to live where you want".
I get it there is a lot of office workers downtown. Private/provincial/civic and federal office workers. Living downtown or close to downtown would put a lot of people within walking distance of where they work or being close to bus routes and LRT. Now I should imagine that a lot of cities throughout the world that have a bigger population than Edmonton have downtown high rises with rooftop play areas for kids. Enclosed outdoor spaces where kids can run around. Edmonton may develop into things like that but maybe not in my lifetime.

Ironically, the predominance of adult buildings downtown likely provided the opportunity for some insightful developer to have created a dedicated space with fantastic kid friendly amenities (covered roof top playground, daycare, in-building private school, etc. - but this ruling will disperse that demographic and dilute such an opportunity. However, the image of downtown being kid-unfriendly likely made the demand side of that equation a concern.

Yeah, there's not even enough school-aged kids in the entirety of Downtown to fill 10 classrooms. There's nothing to lose as it's "spread out", as it wasn't ever there in the first place, because most parents aren't obtuse enough to try and raise their children (to their detriment) in the least-child-friendly-neighbourhood in Edmonton.

E: Actually, according to the last census there's about 3-4 classrooms worth of kids Downtown, 87 kids in K-12. So 3 large to 5 small classes. Maybe we can fire up the ol' schoolhouse in that ever-so-child-friendly park!

Last edited by noodle; 06-04-2017 at 02:26 PM.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

You can complain and control loud music , you cannot complain about a baby crying loudly, , they cry.

Food, water, medication and shelter, a basic human right for everyone in western civilization. Headphones come in a variety of prices and if it's the middle of the night ear plugs are very cheap.

c'mon Gemini... that's a pretty flip comment that does nothing to address a legitimate concern - the same kind of blame the victim, suck it up charlie response that you would abhor elsewhere.

Wasn't meant to be flip at all. Some things are or should be a human right. Denying someone accommodation because of age seems a pretty shallow reason to well, deny someone of accommodation. We all make compromises where we live. Could be we plant trees/shrubs in our gardens for more privacy or if in an apartment with a baby crying at night wear ear plugs. It's a compromise. It's not a big one either. Oh, another thing. Some may thing a baby crying is a perfectly normal thing, others may think it's an absolute nuisance that's worth complaining to the landlord about. Depends on the person.

This thread is like that quote. "I might not always agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it"
or "I may not always agree with were you want to live but I will defend your right to be able to live where you want".
I get it there is a lot of office workers downtown. Private/provincial/civic and federal office workers. Living downtown or close to downtown would put a lot of people within walking distance of where they work or being close to bus routes and LRT. Now I should imagine that a lot of cities throughout the world that have a bigger population than Edmonton have downtown high rises with rooftop play areas for kids. Enclosed outdoor spaces where kids can run around. Edmonton may develop into things like that but maybe not in my lifetime.

Ironically, the predominance of adult buildings downtown likely provided the opportunity for some insightful developer to have created a dedicated space with fantastic kid friendly amenities (covered roof top playground, daycare, in-building private school, etc. - but this ruling will disperse that demographic and dilute such an opportunity. However, the image of downtown being kid-unfriendly likely made the demand side of that equation a concern.

Have to agree that developers could build some very interesting projects in the downtown core and market it as child friendly. Edmonton has no were near the populations of cities like Singapore, Johannesburgh, London, Hong Kong, New York but I bet all those cities have high rises with covered areas for kids to play plus on sight day cares etc. Edmonton downtown core could start doing that on a much smaller scale and if a project was marketed well enough it could be a viable option for people with kids and who work in the downtown core.

You can complain and control loud music , you cannot complain about a baby crying loudly, , they cry.

Food, water, medication and shelter, a basic human right for everyone in western civilization. Headphones come in a variety of prices and if it's the middle of the night ear plugs are very cheap.

c'mon Gemini... that's a pretty flip comment that does nothing to address a legitimate concern - the same kind of blame the victim, suck it up charlie response that you would abhor elsewhere.

Wasn't meant to be flip at all. Some things are or should be a human right. Denying someone accommodation because of age seems a pretty shallow reason to well, deny someone of accommodation. We all make compromises where we live. Could be we plant trees/shrubs in our gardens for more privacy or if in an apartment with a baby crying at night wear ear plugs. It's a compromise. It's not a big one either. Oh, another thing. Some may thing a baby crying is a perfectly normal thing, others may think it's an absolute nuisance that's worth complaining to the landlord about. Depends on the person.

I think there is a lot of grey here vs. a black and white issue. People tend to choose places to live where they can live comfortably and they will fit in. Perhaps age discrimination is wrong, but do we want a bunch of 25 year olds moving into buildings built for retired seniors? Some people are looking for places that are peaceful and quiet and while not every baby or 25 year old is noisy, they do generally tend not to be as quiet as say seniors.

However, I also think it would be excessive for a building to kick out or require a young couple to move if they have a baby. Also, for the senior whose granddaughter has no where to go, I think there should be some flexibility. I understand the need for rules, but I also think they can be too rigidly enforced or applied by those who feel their role is ensure they mindlessly enforce every rule that exists.

Ironically, the predominance of adult buildings downtown likely provided the opportunity for some insightful developer to have created a dedicated space with fantastic kid friendly amenities (covered roof top playground, daycare, in-building private school, etc. - but this ruling will disperse that demographic and dilute such an opportunity. However, the image of downtown being kid-unfriendly likely made the demand side of that equation a concern.

You put your money into such an investment. I think you will lose it. Like it or not, most women in particular, as soon as they have child, or very shortly after that, want a suburban house, with an enclosed back yard, a school and similar. I get it that in places like NYC, Toronto, and Vancouver, people will accept something different, because that's all they can afford, and that's great. But while the city continues to mindlessly expand its borders, continually deflating the price growth of single family homes, that will never happen in Edmonton, and there will never be a market for such a "family friendly" high rise.

This thread is like that quote. "I might not always agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it"
or "I may not always agree with were you want to live but I will defend your right to be able to live where you want".
I get it there is a lot of office workers downtown. Private/provincial/civic and federal office workers. Living downtown or close to downtown would put a lot of people within walking distance of where they work or being close to bus routes and LRT. Now I should imagine that a lot of cities throughout the world that have a bigger population than Edmonton have downtown high rises with rooftop play areas for kids. Enclosed outdoor spaces where kids can run around. Edmonton may develop into things like that but maybe not in my lifetime.

there already are some spaces like that, some of them in/on office buildings as well as residential buildings.

^Well there is a big difference between purchasing and rental. The new government rules maybe address that. Personally, I told my hubby if he ever wanted to move into an over 55 adult complex or an adult building he would be moving on his own.

^so if you rent, you think you can ignore rules like having pets, or children? I don't think so. Renting and buying are exactly the same, you either respect the rules of the building, or you are totally disrespectful. If you don't like the buildings rules, don't rent or buy there. Simple, problem solved.

Well, if we really want to dive into the legal process here, here we go:

From the Alberta Human Rights Act (AHR Act) on tenancy:

Discrimination re tenancy5 No person shall(a) deny to any person or class of persons the right to occupy as a tenant any commercial unit or self-contained dwelling unit that is advertised or otherwise in any way represented as being available for occupancy by a tenant, or(b) discriminate against any person or class of persons with respect to any term or condition of the tenancy of any commercial unit or self-contained dwelling unit, because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation of that person or class of persons or of any other person or class of persons.

Note that it says family status, but does not mention age.

Thus, if someone were to take a landlord or building to court based on the fact that they were either evicted or discriminated against at the point of applying for or during tenancy based on their age, the landlord would most definitely win in court. However, if the case was in regards to children, the tenant or potential tenant would win.

The problem with a lot of the conversation here is that it is too high level. People that fight the RTA, lease agreements, and AHR Act aren't normally people from poor socio-economic backgrounds. Generally, the people that kick and scream have some money, education, etc, and punch and scream. That is why some people are arguing for it to be a Human Rights issue, because not everyone has the same access to tools to address the problem here.

Now, and the second part of this is also important; if someone is evicted on the grounds of having children, they would almost always win a court battle over the matter based on the AHR Act, assuming there are no other issues in tenancy (late rent, etc.). There was a case in Calgary a few years back where a new mother was evicted - it didn't go to court as they decided not to do so. One article stated there were other tenancy issues. That means the landlord should have evicted her based on those grounds, but for whatever reason, wrote in the eviction letter, or it was reported incorrectly: that it was a change in family status. Regardless, she would have won that court case if the sole facts of the case were based on family status. I imagine she was given legal counsel somewhere along the way and told not to pursue it, because there were other grounds that she would have been evicted on at the time.

Previously, before this lawsuit, this is what was explained re: faq the AHR Act as well:

Landlords who restrict tenancy to adults only may argue that it is reasonable and justifiable under section 11 of the AHR Act. In addition, if the alleged discrimination is based on age and not family status, it is important to remember age is not covered under the tenancy section. For instance, an individual who is denied accommodation because they fail to meet age criteria will not be covered under the tenancy section of the AHR Act because the alleged discrimination is based on age. Whereas, a tenant who is denied accommodation because she has children, will be covered under the tenancy section because the alleged discrimination is based on family status.

Well, if we really want to dive into the legal process here, here we go:

From the Alberta Human Rights Act (AHR Act) on tenancy:

Discrimination re tenancy5 No person shall(a) deny to any person or class of persons the right to occupy as a tenant any commercial unit or self-contained dwelling unit that is advertised or otherwise in any way represented as being available for occupancy by a tenant, or(b) discriminate against any person or class of persons with respect to any term or condition of the tenancy of any commercial unit or self-contained dwelling unit, because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation of that person or class of persons or of any other person or class of persons.

Note that it says family status, but does not mention age.

Thus, if someone were to take a landlord or building to court based on the fact that they were either evicted or discriminated against at the point of applying for or during tenancy based on their age, the landlord would most definitely win in court. However, if the case was in regards to children, the tenant or potential tenant would win.

The problem with a lot of the conversation here is that it is too high level. People that fight the RTA, lease agreements, and AHR Act aren't normally people from poor socio-economic backgrounds. Generally, the people that kick and scream have some money, education, etc, and punch and scream. That is why some people are arguing for it to be a Human Rights issue, because not everyone has the same access to tools to address the problem here.

Now, and the second part of this is also important; if someone is evicted on the grounds of having children, they would almost always win a court battle over the matter based on the AHR Act, assuming there are no other issues in tenancy (late rent, etc.). There was a case in Calgary a few years back where a new mother was evicted - it didn't go to court as they decided not to do so. One article stated there were other tenancy issues. That means the landlord should have evicted her based on those grounds, but for whatever reason, wrote in the eviction letter, or it was reported incorrectly: that it was a change in family status. Regardless, she would have won that court case if the sole facts of the case were based on family status. I imagine she was given legal counsel somewhere along the way and told not to pursue it, because there were other grounds that she would have been evicted on at the time.

Previously, before this lawsuit, this is what was explained re: faq the AHR Act as well:

Landlords who restrict tenancy to adults only may argue that it is reasonable and justifiable under section 11 of the AHR Act. In addition, if the alleged discrimination is based on age and not family status, it is important to remember age is not covered under the tenancy section. For instance, an individual who is denied accommodation because they fail to meet age criteria will not be covered under the tenancy section of the AHR Act because the alleged discrimination is based on age. Whereas, a tenant who is denied accommodation because she has children, will be covered under the tenancy section because the alleged discrimination is based on family status.

Well, if we really want to dive into the legal process here, here we go:

From the Alberta Human Rights Act (AHR Act) on tenancy:

Discrimination re tenancy5 No person shall(a) deny to any person or class of persons the right to occupy as a tenant any commercial unit or self-contained dwelling unit that is advertised or otherwise in any way represented as being available for occupancy by a tenant, or(b) discriminate against any person or class of persons with respect to any term or condition of the tenancy of any commercial unit or self-contained dwelling unit, because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation of that person or class of persons or of any other person or class of persons.

Note that it says family status, but does not mention age.

Thus, if someone were to take a landlord or building to court based on the fact that they were either evicted or discriminated against at the point of applying for or during tenancy based on their age, the landlord would most definitely win in court. However, if the case was in regards to children, the tenant or potential tenant would win.

The problem with a lot of the conversation here is that it is too high level. People that fight the RTA, lease agreements, and AHR Act aren't normally people from poor socio-economic backgrounds. Generally, the people that kick and scream have some money, education, etc, and punch and scream. That is why some people are arguing for it to be a Human Rights issue, because not everyone has the same access to tools to address the problem here.

Now, and the second part of this is also important; if someone is evicted on the grounds of having children, they would almost always win a court battle over the matter based on the AHR Act, assuming there are no other issues in tenancy (late rent, etc.). There was a case in Calgary a few years back where a new mother was evicted - it didn't go to court as they decided not to do so. One article stated there were other tenancy issues. That means the landlord should have evicted her based on those grounds, but for whatever reason, wrote in the eviction letter, or it was reported incorrectly: that it was a change in family status. Regardless, she would have won that court case if the sole facts of the case were based on family status. I imagine she was given legal counsel somewhere along the way and told not to pursue it, because there were other grounds that she would have been evicted on at the time.

Previously, before this lawsuit, this is what was explained re: faq the AHR Act as well:

Landlords who restrict tenancy to adults only may argue that it is reasonable and justifiable under section 11 of the AHR Act. In addition, if the alleged discrimination is based on age and not family status, it is important to remember age is not covered under the tenancy section. For instance, an individual who is denied accommodation because they fail to meet age criteria will not be covered under the tenancy section of the AHR Act because the alleged discrimination is based on age. Whereas, a tenant who is denied accommodation because she has children, will be covered under the tenancy section because the alleged discrimination is based on family status.

It would be helpful if you posted the actual web-page of the court case you are quoting instead of just the court case number.

Now if a person bought a condo in an adult only building decided to rent out his/her privately owned dwelling in a multiple dwelling building to a tenant/renter with children would he/she be able to do that under the new proposal the Gov of Ab is proposing - or would that privately owned condo be able to stay adult only under the new G of A proposal. Privately purchased dwellings in a multiple dwelling building are different from tenant occupied suites in a corporation/numbered company dwelling. If your not a lawyer don't attempt to explain the difference between a tenant/renter or privately owned.

It would be helpful if you posted the actual web-page of the court case you are quoting instead of just the court case number.

Now if a person bought a condo in an adult only building decided to rent out his/her privately owned dwelling in a multiple dwelling building to a tenant/renter with children would he/she be able to do that under the new proposal the Gov of Ab is proposing - or would that privately owned condo be able to stay adult only under the new G of A proposal. Privately purchased dwellings in a multiple dwelling building are different from tenant occupied suites in a corporation/numbered company dwelling. If your not a lawyer don't attempt to explain the difference between a tenant/renter or privately owned.

A lawyer wouldn't write anything on the internet that could be perceived as legal advice, or at least would include a disclaimer, because ya know, law and ethics oath. Yes, it was sarcasm, though.

This case arose when Condominium Corporation No 052 0580 (the Corporation) brought an application for judicial review challenging the jurisdiction of the Alberta Human Rights Commission to investigate a human rights complaint by one of its owners. The underlying dispute involved Dennis Goldsack, the owner of a condominium unit in Tradition at Southbrook, Edmonton, who was confined to a wheelchair and had been assigned a parking stall closest to the building’s elevators. The Corporation’s Board decided to repurpose that stall for bicycle parking and storage, and reassigned Goldsack a parking stall that was further from the elevators and narrower. After failed negotiations with the Corporation, Goldsack brought a human rights complaint against it under section 4 of the AHRA. This section prohibits discrimination on the ground of physical disability (as well as other grounds) in the provision of “goods, services, accommodation or facilities that are customarily available to the public”.

Condominium Corporation No 052 0580 also made an interpretive argument for why section 4 of the AHRA should not apply to condominium corporations. It argued that because section 5 of the AHRA provides specific protection against discrimination for tenants of commercial and self-contained dwelling units, section 4 of the AHRA “inferentially excludes residents who are property owners” (at para 23). To hold otherwise, argued the Corporation, would create a redundancy in the AHRA, because residential tenants would fall under both sections 4 and 5. Justice Graesser found that there was “nothing inconsistent with providing express remedies for tenants” in section 5, which was “intended to deal with landlords refusing to rent premises to people on the basis of their personal characteristics”, and at the same time, interpreting section 4 broadly enough to include landlords and condominium corporations (at paras 84-5).

Section 4 for reference:

Discrimination re goods, services, accommodation, facilities4 No person shall (a) deny to any person or class of persons any goods, services,accommodation or facilities that are customarily available tothe public, or (b) discriminate against any person or class of persons withrespect to any goods, services, accommodation or facilitiesthat are customarily available to the public,because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, genderidentity, gender expression, physical disability, mental disability,ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, familystatus or sexual orientation of that person or class of persons or ofany other person or class of persons.

Basically the same thing that section 5 says in regards to tenants, thus section 4 is applicable to owners' rights.

^Well I'm gonna be sarcastic now. I am not going to was through some court case about a person and his wheelchair. A wheelchair is not human although the person using it is. Can you find a court case about a building that allowed tenants/renters with children in after being deemed an adult only building. Unless you want to provide a very condensed version of what a wheelchair and children have in common in regards to ageism.

^Well I'm gonna be sarcastic now. I am not going to was through some court case about a person and his wheelchair. A wheelchair is not human although the person using it is. Can you find a court case about a building that allowed tenants/renters with children in after being deemed an adult only building. Unless you want to provide a very condensed version of what a wheelchair and children have in common in regards to ageism.

^Well I'm gonna be sarcastic now. I am not going to was through some court case about a person and his wheelchair. A wheelchair is not human although the person using it is. Can you find a court case about a building that allowed tenants/renters with children in after being deemed an adult only building. Unless you want to provide a very condensed version of what a wheelchair and children have in common in regards to ageism.

That wasn't the point of the case. Plus, it wasn't the wheelchair, it was about the person in the wheelchair and their physical disability as outlined in the AHR Act. Sigh. I explained that in my first post: I addressed the fact ageism isn't the same as family status. You could win based on family status as it stands now, as a reason to have children in your unit, whether you own or rent. You would not win solely based on your age. That is, if you want to live in a seniors building, you would not win. If you're a teenager by yourself and want to live in an adults only building, you will not win. If you have children; however, you will win because of your family status, which is inclusive of age.

The case argues that owners are included in the AHR Act and sets precedent for future cases, because family status is included in the same paragraph as physical disability. That is all the case is saying.

Anyways, I've explained this enough, that if you want to learn more, you are also able to read the AHR Act, the case(s) with precedent and do due diligence yourself.

^That fine. Now in regards to thisiscrimination re goods, services, accommodation, facilities4 No person shall (a) deny to any person or class of persons any goods, services,accommodation or facilities that are customarily available tothe public, or (b) discriminate against any person or class of persons withrespect to any goods, services, accommodation or facilitiesthat are customarily available to the public,because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, genderidentity, gender expression, physical disability, mental disability,ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, familystatus or sexual orientation of that person or class of persons or ofany other person or class of persons.
-------
No where does it mention 'age' and I think because children cannot make adult decisions especially in the way of renting or buying a place to live the law in this case does not mention 'age' because it assumes (the law is an ***) parents make those decisions. Now, some parent(s) are taking on properties that are deemed all adult buildings. They are saying that it's discrimination to not allow kids in a building. They want the word 'age' to be actually put into the act. The words "family status" is not sufficient.

Well, if we really want to dive into the legal process here, here we go:

From the Alberta Human Rights Act (AHR Act) on tenancy:

Discrimination re tenancy5 No person shall(a) deny to any person or class of persons the right to occupy as a tenant any commercial unit or self-contained dwelling unit that is advertised or otherwise in any way represented as being available for occupancy by a tenant, or(b) discriminate against any person or class of persons with respect to any term or condition of the tenancy of any commercial unit or self-contained dwelling unit, because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation of that person or class of persons or of any other person or class of persons.

Note that it says family status, but does not mention age.

Thus, if someone were to take a landlord or building to court based on the fact that they were either evicted or discriminated against at the point of applying for or during tenancy based on their age, the landlord would most definitely win in court. However, if the case was in regards to children, the tenant or potential tenant would win.

The problem with a lot of the conversation here is that it is too high level. People that fight the RTA, lease agreements, and AHR Act aren't normally people from poor socio-economic backgrounds. Generally, the people that kick and scream have some money, education, etc, and punch and scream. That is why some people are arguing for it to be a Human Rights issue, because not everyone has the same access to tools to address the problem here.

Now, and the second part of this is also important; if someone is evicted on the grounds of having children, they would almost always win a court battle over the matter based on the AHR Act, assuming there are no other issues in tenancy (late rent, etc.). There was a case in Calgary a few years back where a new mother was evicted - it didn't go to court as they decided not to do so. One article stated there were other tenancy issues. That means the landlord should have evicted her based on those grounds, but for whatever reason, wrote in the eviction letter, or it was reported incorrectly: that it was a change in family status. Regardless, she would have won that court case if the sole facts of the case were based on family status. I imagine she was given legal counsel somewhere along the way and told not to pursue it, because there were other grounds that she would have been evicted on at the time.

Previously, before this lawsuit, this is what was explained re: faq the AHR Act as well:

Landlords who restrict tenancy to adults only may argue that it is reasonable and justifiable under section 11 of the AHR Act. In addition, if the alleged discrimination is based on age and not family status, it is important to remember age is not covered under the tenancy section. For instance, an individual who is denied accommodation because they fail to meet age criteria will not be covered under the tenancy section of the AHR Act because the alleged discrimination is based on age. Whereas, a tenant who is denied accommodation because she has children, will be covered under the tenancy section because the alleged discrimination is based on family status.

I'm not a lawyer, but I am not sure family status necessarily covers minor children. If the children were over a certain age presumably they would be allowed, so it is not the fact there are children in a family, but their age that is the problem. I assume family status primarily refers to whether someone is single, divorced or common law. It might not seem a big deal now, but I believe there was a time in the past where people wouldn't rent to a man and a woman living together if they were not married or to someone who disclosed that they were divorced. I suppose it would be up to the courts to interpret exactly what family status means.

The AHR Act prohibits discrimination in tenancy based on marital status and family status. This means that rules that affect families must be reasonable and take into consideration families who have children. Examples of rules that could be discriminatory are:

A refusal to rent a smaller apartment to a larger family. For instance, if a single parent with three teenagers wanted to rent a three bedroom unit, the landlord must have a good reason, such as an overcrowding by-law, to refuse rental.
A preference for tenants who are a married couple rather than two single women. This could amount to discrimination based on sexual orientation if the two women are unmarried lesbians, but also if they are heterosexual. For example, if the landlord refuses to add up the household income of both women to calculate their level of income, this could prevent the women from proving they can afford the apartment, while a married couple's income would be calculated together.

Judgments out of British Columbia (Day v. Cruickshank, 1999; Segin v. Chung, 2002), Ontario (St. Hill v. VRM Investments Ltd., 2004; York Condominium Corporation No. 216 v. Dudnik) and Nova Scotia (Leadley v. Oakland, 2004) have found discrimination based on family status when families with children are excluded from an adult-only building.

Honestly, I haven't found any cases in Alberta in regards to the specific notion of being denied on this basis. I believe it is inferred as such though, that if it went to court, that would be the outcome based on cases elsewhere. I don't think anyone with the said problem could afford to do so. I guess in the condo case, an owner may be able to afford such, but again, marginalized people are usually the one's effected by the current rules that certain buildings have. I imagine that others settle matters outside of the court, because they make noise/conversation with the other party before it goes too far. Just anecdotal perspective on that front though.

Ultimately, it would be up for some judge to decide based on lawyers presenting their cases. Hard to tell for sure what the outcome would be, although there is some external precedent. I don't know how a judge would interpret our AHR Act relative to the decisions that came down elsewhere though.

^If you look at the AHR act and the bit you quoted you will see it mentions 'renters' in a place designed as a 'rental unit' Be that house, multiple dwelling etc. Now, what will happen to a person that personally owns a unit, multiple dwelling our house that is designated as adult only building and they move and want to rent their place out. Is it going to be discrimination if he refuses tenants because they have kids even though he bought into and adult only dwelling?.
The law is indeed complicated.

^Sure seniors makes sense when there are targeted amenities and services but they should still be open to other who can benefit from the same service, including people with disabilities.

The 15-year grandfather makes sense politically but for those condos that changed the rules to exclude minor when there were already families with children or who purchased planning to remain in the building after starting a family it's insult to injury.

I'll be building a house in the near future as my wife & I have outgrown my 1,100 square foot condo downtown & my only larger residential revenue property is too good of an earner for me to wanna do the ol' swapperooo. Waiting until her immigration status is stable & she's here full-time before we start looking in earnest.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

Seniors-only would make sense if there supports in place such as home care.
As for the grandfathering period, I agree with it in principle but 15 years is too long.

I imagine, home care, nursing, food services, etc. plus building design all require certain minimums be met to enable the provision of seniors services.

Maybe some sort of rational criteria other than age should be the deciding factor.

Same for say the possibility of a single parent's only building where there could be justification for limiting occupation to families and maybe excluding others like singles, childless couples, seniors, etc. in order to get the economies of scale needed for dedicated services such as onsite daycare or schooling or something to enable the residents to live a better life - just like those in seniors residences.

Let's keep pretending it's the evil adult-only buildings keeping families out of Downtown & not the bajillion other factors that have had families moving out of central cores whenever feasible for the past century!

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

I don't really understand why anyone on the right is concerned. Don't they all live in bedroom suburb McMansion's or on The Family Farm™? No self-respecting conservative lives in socialist condominiums.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

I don't really understand why anyone on the right is concerned. Don't they all live in bedroom suburb McMansion's or on The Family Farm™? No self-respecting conservative lives in socialist condominiums.

They might own them though - and the senior vote is typically conservative, only the least intelligent don't grow out of socialism by about 30. But you are probably right in a way, this isn't enough of a vote winner to care.

I don't really understand why anyone on the right is concerned. Don't they all live in bedroom suburb McMansion's or on The Family Farm™? No self-respecting conservative lives in socialist condominiums.

I don't really understand why anyone on the right is concerned. Don't they all live in bedroom suburb McMansion's or on The Family Farm™? No self-respecting conservative lives in socialist condominiums.

They might own them though - and the senior vote is typically conservative, only the least intelligent don't grow out of socialism by about 30. But you are probably right in a way, this isn't enough of a vote winner to care.

Hopefully it gets repealed by the UPC, it makes no sense, if you want to rent a place in a multi-family building where there are no children, you should be allowed to do that.

They should keep their damned noses out of it, typical NDP!!!

It makes no sense, if you own a condo and want to have children in it, you should be allowed to do that. They should keep their damned noses out of it, typical meddling condo boards.

Clearly you know nothing of condo boards or bylaws. The boards dont create the bylaws they enforce them. One buys into a condo knowing in advance what bylaws/rules everyone must follow.

Condo owners give up their right to live however they wish when they buy into a condo. I may not be allowed pets or they may be restricted to size/weight. I may not be allowed to rent my condo short term. I won't be able to leave my garbage in the hallway or blast my music until 3 am as loud as i want. The bylaws are meant for the peace and enjoyment of everyone within the condo.

This also includes adult only building designations which have nothing to do with condo boards.

If you want to cherry pick one bylaw to ignore then every other owner will do the same. And then what's the point of a condo if everyones doing whatever they want whenever they want.

I don't really understand why anyone on the right is concerned. Don't they all live in bedroom suburb McMansion's or on The Family Farm™? No self-respecting conservative lives in socialist condominiums.

They might own them though - and the senior vote is typically conservative, only the least intelligent don't grow out of socialism by about 30. But you are probably right in a way, this isn't enough of a vote winner to care.

You're kidding right? I don't think I will take anything you say on politics seriously ever again.

I realize this is totally irrational of me but when I think of adults only buildings I imagine frat boys and girls gone wild. When I hear of seniors only buildings I think of (if I were religious) Gods waiting room. It even make me laugh that I think that way.

I realize this is totally irrational of me but when I think of adults only buildings I imagine frat boys and girls gone wild. When I hear of seniors only buildings I think of (if I were religious) Gods waiting room. It even make me laugh that I think that way.

Lived in one for 6 years and neither was true. In fact, the older owners were up long after frat types, when we had our Christmas parties!lol! No staying power

I don't really understand why anyone on the right is concerned. Don't they all live in bedroom suburb McMansion's or on The Family Farm™? No self-respecting conservative lives in socialist condominiums.

They might own them though - and the senior vote is typically conservative, only the least intelligent don't grow out of socialism by about 30. But you are probably right in a way, this isn't enough of a vote winner to care.

I must be extra dumb, I keep getting more socialist as I age. Maybe you're confusing intelligence with empathy: as I get older I become more aware of injustice and brutal inequality. You get more selfish and concerned about how to hoard wealth so you can be buried with it, if only so you feel like you're better than others.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

Hopefully it gets repealed by the UPC, it makes no sense, if you want to rent a place in a multi-family building where there are no children, you should be allowed to do that.

Actually, you can still rent a place in a multi-family building where there are no children - that hasn't changed. You can rent in whatever building will take you. There are probably a lot of buildings that will continue to not have kids or many of them, due to the nature of the suites, location, etc.., if they really bother you so much.

The building just can't kick out someone who becomes pregnant or refuse to rent to someone with kids. Hopefully you do not have an allergy to children because it is possible you could encounter one somewhere.

1. Age discrimination is now prohibited in the protected area of goods, services, accommodation or facilities (referred to as “services” below)
Exceptions that allow speci c types of age restrictions in the area of services
While age is now a protected ground under the area of services, there are three exceptions that allow speci c types of age restrictions to continue without violating the Act: bene ts for seniors and minors; seniors‐only housing; and existing age‐restricted condominiums, co‐operative housing units and mobile home sites.
Bene ts for seniors and minors
• Programs that provide bene ts to minors or seniors, such as discounted movie tickets and reduced bus fares, can continue.
• Seniors can be de ned by the service provider o ering the bene t as 55 years or any older age.
• Minors are considered to be under 18 years of age.
JANUARY 2018
NOTICE OF CHANGES TO
1 ALBERTA’S HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION
Q5A-1712
Seniors‐only housing
• Seniors‐only housing will continue to be allowed so that older Albertans can choose to live together in a community of people at a similar life stage.
• e minimum age cut‐o for seniors‐only housing is 55 years of age. Communities can set age restrictions that are older than 55 as well.
• is applies to housing where all units are reserved for one or more people, at least one of whom is 55.
Existing age‐restricted condominiums, co‐operative housing units and mobile home sites
e Act protects members of the public against discrimination by condominium corporations, co‐operatives and mobile home landlords, which are included under the protected area of services.
• Existing age‐restricted condominiums, co‐operatives and mobile home sites will be allowed for a 15‐year transition period, which ends on December 31, 2032.
• Existing age‐restricted condominiums, co‐operatives and mobile home sites may change to seniors‐only housing during the transition period, even though there may still be residents who do not meet the new age restriction.
• e transition period applies to condominium units, co‐operative housing units and mobile home sites whether they are owner‐occupied or rented.
2. Age discrimination is now prohibited in the protected area of tenancy
Age restrictions will not be permitted in rental buildings after January 1, 2018, unless they meet the exception for seniors‐only housing, which is described above.